Yes paper or poly. Point is for poly you have little to choose from there is SB15MF which is cheap, perhaps some Aurum Cantus, not sure about Peerless and AT H15 which costs approx. 300 EUR.
Paper ones cheaper than Satori are smaller Wavecors BD series 11-14cm and the same from Eton
E.g. Wavecor WF120BD04 costs like 35 EUR less than Satori, so 70 in a pair. This gives quite a margin for other drivers 🙂
Paper ones cheaper than Satori are smaller Wavecors BD series 11-14cm and the same from Eton
E.g. Wavecor WF120BD04 costs like 35 EUR less than Satori, so 70 in a pair. This gives quite a margin for other drivers 🙂
Last edited:
I've owned a few 3-Way speakers using an 8" woofer and none of them have been lacking in SPL in a home/medium room setting; what they have all lacked is grunt in the bottom octave and my thought there was that the next phase of this speaker would be a subwoofer to work from 80Hz down
Would the Peerless 830667 be considered easy enough to work with, although they are becoming very expensive here in Oz, they sell for the same as the 10"
Would the Peerless 830667 be considered easy enough to work with, although they are becoming very expensive here in Oz, they sell for the same as the 10"
SB15MFC looks like a nice driver. Can not find many designs with it though.
Aurum Cantus quiet expensive in EU and not many offer them.
What the target SPL and range for a mid?
Going 4" for speed or 5"for a bit more body.
Maybe depends on how high the woofer will be crossed. I like to keep it quiet low.
300 - 3000 Hz is doable?
Aurum Cantus quiet expensive in EU and not many offer them.
What the target SPL and range for a mid?
Going 4" for speed or 5"for a bit more body.
Maybe depends on how high the woofer will be crossed. I like to keep it quiet low.
300 - 3000 Hz is doable?
Personal preference is 4"
Perhaps this one rather than the much more expensive Satori
SB ACOUSTICS 4" MIDRANGE - MNRX-II
SB12MNRX2-25-4 Sb Acoustics 4" Midrange - Mnrx-Ii, Speaker Drivers | Wagner Online Electronic Stores
Not used it and nver listened
Perhaps this one rather than the much more expensive Satori
SB ACOUSTICS 4" MIDRANGE - MNRX-II
SB12MNRX2-25-4 Sb Acoustics 4" Midrange - Mnrx-Ii, Speaker Drivers | Wagner Online Electronic Stores
Not used it and nver listened
As in all of standard SB line bit of recessed and muffled midrange in those
I have now CRC17 and they could be more clear and forward.
I have now CRC17 and they could be more clear and forward.
Morel EM428. in EU his one will be half of the available $600 budget. Don't know how available this one is.
Many seem quiet happy with a SB17MFC in a 2/2.5-way
Many seem quiet happy with a SB17MFC in a 2/2.5-way
These are the very basic targets for a loudspeaker that anyone can understand, SPL capability and bandwidth. I don't know how to get more simple than this, yet no one is talking anything about these very basic things.
I'm calling anyone participating to such endeavor to get handle on the big picture before jumping in to select drivers because a reference system might not need any of the mentioned drivers before the design work is done! I might misunderstand the term reference and what is it that anyone is trying to reach here and the following is a bit of a rant.
If it was project that tries to achieve reference status, but failing to achieve reference SPL where the music is mixed to sound the best then I don't see how a project would be called a "reference" unless it meets this most understandable goal. There is no need for too much SPL or too wide a bandwidth and the price doesn't need to be high, the stuff just needs to be defined and easiest way I can come up with to define and justify "reference" name is to meet the reference SPL with good enough fidelity so that the name is proudly fulfilled.
Getting some rough estimate for SPL and bandwidth capability of a system is not too hard either so easily done by math or some simple box sims to see what size of a bass system is required, for example, before even looking at what is available and at what cost. Mid and tweeter capability can be evaluated from datasheets and then by measurement. I'm sorry but speaker that uses Satori or any other name drivers on it doesn't justify as "reference" by itself and is subject to change until the next fashionable brand comes along. Hearing system, though, takes many human generations to change and SPL reference doesn't go anywhere soon. However, I can understand that brand names are far more interesting to new comers and audiophiles than the meaningful stuff like the System Design to a goal. Which is only for engineer heads and doesn't pay money I guess.
If the SPL and bandwidth are hard to meet given other constrains already laid out then there should be consideration why to do the project at all, in my eyes the goal is missing. Maybe just call it "a three way speaker with these drivers" like all the other three ways with some drivers. I just don't see why anyone would not build any other 3-way speaker that are already accessible locally for any budget and fashion, there is no need for another design like this I'm afraid. Actually, I don't know the DIY kit variety and availability almost at all so I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't know what would be a good goal for DIY audio 3-way project that would be easily accessible to anyone and would get any attention. Maybe just make it very simple to understand, rather cheap and easy to access, and still give very reasonable performance at home? A goal that even I can understand 🙂
Alright, rant over. I'll try and push away the discussion out from the driver selection when ever I can since there are interesting issues on any design that tries to appeal the masses, other than the drivers. First one that comes to mind how much amplifier power is available at hobbyists home? Is 100 Watts reasonable home amp output capability to assume today or design for say 20 Watts just in case? What tools we assume everyone has, how to construct? These will determine the size and what not, even without thinking about the SPL or the drivers at all. If it has to be easy at bedroom floor, then a shoe box size made out of some wood product, or big things but IKEA style. Come on everyone, you can do it, put some thought on the subject!🙂
ps. I plotted the ubiquitous Peerless SLS 12" into WinISD as an example and it looks like it could achieve ~110dB at 1 meter at 70Hz and above with 100Watts amplifier. If 110dB was a target SPL at 1 meter for any bandwidth, this would be roughly 100dB at 3 meters and might get the reference 85dB RMS level sound ok at listening position weighting in all the losses due to passive network and not counting in room influence? I haven't done the math check before. For reference sound quality at these levels one should look for more cone area at LF and find midrange and tweeter system that could meet the target as well and prevent distortion creeping in.
Last edited:
For me any SPL from 85dB up is fine. I do not need high level input. No need for 90+
I need a speaker that sounds clear already at low volumes.
Extension - whatever under 40Hz is acceptable.
I need a speaker that sounds clear already at low volumes.
Extension - whatever under 40Hz is acceptable.
Well, I am asking for suggestions regarding requirements. So far we have suggestions for a budget ($600), a basic layout (TMW tower with 8" woofer), and driver availability on four of the five continents.
A design starts with a concept, and there is nothing wrong with starting a concept with a basic statement such as "this speaker will use the ScanSpeak 10F as a midrange"... it is a starting point for feasibility studies. It is a constraint, and constraints fuel creativity.
So what do you think a requirement should be?
j.
Which is interesting because as yet there doesn't seem to be an outline of what this speaker is supposed to do...?
"The woodshop capability often sets the design direction.
assume power saw, router, drill, clamps
Using all drivers from one company, and with one cone material can help produce a uniform "tone".
To reduce edge distortion at low cost, an "Avalon Compas" baffle offers form and functon using a table saw. For simplier bevels, Troels 10" wide Extended Illuminator cabinet has good construction ideas.
IF a 3.5 Ohm ampifier load is acceptable, one 4-ohm 8" woofer with 90db sensitivity can be used with an 8-ohm 86db midrange.
$115 SB23NBACS45-4 8" aluminum cone woofer
___4-ohm version has 90 dB Sensitivity (2.83 V / 1 m)
___2-cuft ported cabinet has -F3 = 30Hz, and -F3=70Hz when this cabinet is sealed(subwoofer?)
$80 SB17NBAC35-8 6.5" aluminum cone midbass
___8-ohm version has 86.5 dB Sensitivity (2.83 V / 1 m)
___6.5" covers "vocal range" and helps smooth baffle step compensation.
$55 SB26ADC-4 1" aluminum dome tweeter 4-ohm
=======================================
~$250---drivers/speaker
Using an LR4/LR4 crossover:
-attenuates aluminum cone breakup;
-delivers good T-M phase transfer on a vertical flat baffle;
-supports ~120-1,800Hz range on the midrange driver. (vocal range =80-1200Hz)
Attachments
AND NOW: Time for something completely different!!
There are internet ads from China speaker companies selling an under $200 clone of the BMS 4592 coaxial compression driver. Build a wood horn and add a 15" woofer and you have a nifty 3-way speaker and some education. A USA group buy might be worth exploring. Any experience with this China coaxial compression driver?
There are internet ads from China speaker companies selling an under $200 clone of the BMS 4592 coaxial compression driver. Build a wood horn and add a 15" woofer and you have a nifty 3-way speaker and some education. A USA group buy might be worth exploring. Any experience with this China coaxial compression driver?
Attachments
Well Allen, what do you think it should do? We are gathering requirements at this stage, so all thoughts and opinions should be shared.
It seems that Moondog55, kapelli, and MrHifitunes are the initial "customers" of this design project... They are most likely to build it first. So I am very interested in their requirements.
j.
It seems that Moondog55, kapelli, and MrHifitunes are the initial "customers" of this design project... They are most likely to build it first. So I am very interested in their requirements.
j.
Thanks LineSource...
I am trying to collect the various requirements being suggested. Here is what we have so far:
1) A TMW 3 way tower with an 8" woofer. This is reasonable, but with such a system we need to have realistic expectations about max SPL and sensitivity. Twin woofers would result in greater SPL and higher sensitivity.
2) A budget of $600. Is this for the drivers, or for everything? I would think that $600 for drivers is reasonable, but a total budget for everything of $600 starts to really limit our choices of drivers and crossovers. It would mean a driver budget of about $450, and that is rather stingy for 6 drivers.
3) A choice of drivers which are readily available in most nations. From what I have gathered, Dayton is somewhat over-priced in Europe, and Seas is hard to get (expensive) in Australia. Are there any other driver OEMs that should be excluded?
4) SPL capability of 85 dB at 1 m, with a 20 dB headroom for peaks, which equates to 105 dB for peaks. Is this enough?
5) Minimum impedance of 3.5 Ohm
6) Basic workshop capabilities, assume power saw, router, drill, clamps.
7) Baffle edge diffraction control will be limited to bevels cut on table saw.
8) Bass extension minimum of F3 = 40 Hz. I would prefer a requirement for F10 rather than F3, but this is what has been proposed so far.
LineSource - your thoughts on the coax compression driver are interesting. If anyone is interested in building this kind of system, please get behind this idea and voice your opinion.
I am trying to collect the various requirements being suggested. Here is what we have so far:
1) A TMW 3 way tower with an 8" woofer. This is reasonable, but with such a system we need to have realistic expectations about max SPL and sensitivity. Twin woofers would result in greater SPL and higher sensitivity.
2) A budget of $600. Is this for the drivers, or for everything? I would think that $600 for drivers is reasonable, but a total budget for everything of $600 starts to really limit our choices of drivers and crossovers. It would mean a driver budget of about $450, and that is rather stingy for 6 drivers.
3) A choice of drivers which are readily available in most nations. From what I have gathered, Dayton is somewhat over-priced in Europe, and Seas is hard to get (expensive) in Australia. Are there any other driver OEMs that should be excluded?
4) SPL capability of 85 dB at 1 m, with a 20 dB headroom for peaks, which equates to 105 dB for peaks. Is this enough?
5) Minimum impedance of 3.5 Ohm
6) Basic workshop capabilities, assume power saw, router, drill, clamps.
7) Baffle edge diffraction control will be limited to bevels cut on table saw.
8) Bass extension minimum of F3 = 40 Hz. I would prefer a requirement for F10 rather than F3, but this is what has been proposed so far.
LineSource - your thoughts on the coax compression driver are interesting. If anyone is interested in building this kind of system, please get behind this idea and voice your opinion.
Interested in this project. The standard sb15nrx makes a pretty good midrange. I love the ac130 and think it's really under rated as a mid. It sounds great in the Continuums.
I don't have the capability to help design these but I could construct and measure a prototype.
I don't have the capability to help design these but I could construct and measure a prototype.
Last edited:
This implies a speaker for free placement which covers half space at higher frequencies, and full space at lower ones. Is this justifiable for writing a suitable product specification?
I'm one who would get a speaker specified and designed, and almost completely built before needing to know what drivers will be used.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'd hope that design opportunities won't be missed.
^ exacto. And, the 10F or any other driver mentioned might be just what the doctor orders but have to get to the doctors first! I see people wanting stuff because for some arbitrary reason without ever critically thinking why would it be better or worse than some other set of options. As you say, limiting design options is backwards thinking. If very good sound quality for money is a goal it is irrelevant what size or brand drivers there are as long as the goal of very good sound quality for money is achieved and there is lot more that makes the output of a system than the transducers alone.
I think question like "why would anyone build this project?" would need to be answered first and foremost to get to get a solid foundation for project and a finished design eventually. Who is the anyone in question, who is gonna build it and why? Otherwise there is a risk for million things and desires with contradiction and the end result is a mishmash no one wants to build 🙂 Basic stuff for any engineering project.
I suggested the CTA 2034 standard earlier just because that is some kind of guideline that attempts to somehow generalize typical listening situation and gives some measures how to judge the quality in simulation phase. In addition at least VituixCAD has the CTA 2034 standard stuff baked in so it is rather easy and inexpensive to iterate a design with. The software even provides a preference ranking number by Sean Olive to judge performance. Very easy to evaluate the performance development of any project before going to listening tests.
Anyway, will follow on the side how this develops. I searched around some drivers minutes ago and checked the forum as well and there are million threads trying to achieve some SPL target for small money for example. Anyone done research what is missing, what is wrong why we need another project like the many before, how to make this one more successful and in what metric?
I think question like "why would anyone build this project?" would need to be answered first and foremost to get to get a solid foundation for project and a finished design eventually. Who is the anyone in question, who is gonna build it and why? Otherwise there is a risk for million things and desires with contradiction and the end result is a mishmash no one wants to build 🙂 Basic stuff for any engineering project.
I suggested the CTA 2034 standard earlier just because that is some kind of guideline that attempts to somehow generalize typical listening situation and gives some measures how to judge the quality in simulation phase. In addition at least VituixCAD has the CTA 2034 standard stuff baked in so it is rather easy and inexpensive to iterate a design with. The software even provides a preference ranking number by Sean Olive to judge performance. Very easy to evaluate the performance development of any project before going to listening tests.
Anyway, will follow on the side how this develops. I searched around some drivers minutes ago and checked the forum as well and there are million threads trying to achieve some SPL target for small money for example. Anyone done research what is missing, what is wrong why we need another project like the many before, how to make this one more successful and in what metric?
For what it is worth tried to check out what is a comfortably loud listening level but I only have cheap A weighted SPL meter. It shows roughly 70dB(A) with some random songs I tried at listening position roughly 3 meters away for nice comfortably loud sound. I tried to Google how to convert this to the 85dB(C) reference using pink noise, but no luck yet. This is still not party loud, but comfortably loud for my ears and I think I could enjoy full album. Didn't try pink noise yet, I'm not sure how to switch between pink noise and songs reliably without affecting the level. So, if not meeting "the reference SPL" at least there should be some kind of target for baseline performance. Anyone checked their preference level with SPL meter? I guess there are threads for this in the forum, didn't check yet.
Seems many message going back and fort. That's what they call brainstorm...but maybe we need some guides on how to set up a project? Maybe checklist?
The goals for me :
After 2 builds (CARRERA bookshelf and soundbar) Im interested to explore more.
I like to build a 3-way for learning purpose as it is more complex as a 2-way.
I like to explore different designs. So re-use of the drivers is a bonus to safe costs.
classic 3-way bookschelf /floorstander
Built wide and narrow baffle
closed box, vented, TL
Use parallel and serial XO
Time alignment (woodwork vs electric)
Flat on axis vs tilted design.
Higher order vs lower order XO
etc
I want to build it and explore the different setup...learn each strength and weakness. The set of designs should allow me to explore those with minimal extra cost hence re-use of the drivers.
We aiming to make a platform for beginners to explore building but also explore different setups.
So "Reference"in my context isnt benchmark.
Reference is best design practise with the given set of drivers in different designs.
This is not just designing 1 speaker, but a set of speakers and XO's with the same drivers.
To limit the first set of speakers I would go for TMW. Maybe 3 designs.
Wide baffle (around 40-45cm /16-18"), narrow baffle (10") and TL would be great.
With high / low order XO. flat and tilted.
Later maybe it can be expland to MTMW, TMWW, etc...but that would be phase 2 for me of this project.
Wattage and SPL?
Now I play 30W with my CARRERA's (82-83 db?) more then sufficant never go higher then 9 oçlock.
So around 75db mark is sufficient.
Minimum impedance should be >5ohm
Easy to work with drivers.
Frequency range? Not so important, see what is possible for the money and design wise. Sure a 3-way will go lower then 50Hz.
I do prefer a speaker to be "musical" iso analytical hence poly mid driver.
Anything more?
I just checked prices for AC130 in EU. 220 euro for 1 driver 🙁 and difficult to get your hands on.
Also, best to use round drivers to simplify woodwork
The goals for me :
After 2 builds (CARRERA bookshelf and soundbar) Im interested to explore more.
I like to build a 3-way for learning purpose as it is more complex as a 2-way.
I like to explore different designs. So re-use of the drivers is a bonus to safe costs.
classic 3-way bookschelf /floorstander
Built wide and narrow baffle
closed box, vented, TL
Use parallel and serial XO
Time alignment (woodwork vs electric)
Flat on axis vs tilted design.
Higher order vs lower order XO
etc
I want to build it and explore the different setup...learn each strength and weakness. The set of designs should allow me to explore those with minimal extra cost hence re-use of the drivers.
We aiming to make a platform for beginners to explore building but also explore different setups.
So "Reference"in my context isnt benchmark.
Reference is best design practise with the given set of drivers in different designs.
This is not just designing 1 speaker, but a set of speakers and XO's with the same drivers.
To limit the first set of speakers I would go for TMW. Maybe 3 designs.
Wide baffle (around 40-45cm /16-18"), narrow baffle (10") and TL would be great.
With high / low order XO. flat and tilted.
Later maybe it can be expland to MTMW, TMWW, etc...but that would be phase 2 for me of this project.
Wattage and SPL?
Now I play 30W with my CARRERA's (82-83 db?) more then sufficant never go higher then 9 oçlock.
So around 75db mark is sufficient.
Minimum impedance should be >5ohm
Easy to work with drivers.
Frequency range? Not so important, see what is possible for the money and design wise. Sure a 3-way will go lower then 50Hz.
I do prefer a speaker to be "musical" iso analytical hence poly mid driver.
Anything more?
I just checked prices for AC130 in EU. 220 euro for 1 driver 🙁 and difficult to get your hands on.
Also, best to use round drivers to simplify woodwork
Last edited:
^ I use your post as an example, nothing personal but it represents thinking of many new comers like me few years back: I agree whole heartedly that building different kind of designs is very much fun but eventually they all are just different, all play music and are rather nice because built by own hands. Some are nicer with some aspect than the others. But to really get better sound, or better system for any particular application, one would have to understand why to build WMTM or WTM or what ever "nice to have" feeling it was. Wanting things just for wanting them without thinking why doesn't lead to anything other than outflow of money. Why build TL box? or closed or reflex? One should think and test what matters and what does not matter to make progress to better (any metric). This translates to cost rather directly, anything that does not matter can be ditched.
If all these basic questions are not asked and answered the sound doesn't get any better, only different. While it is nice to test all these various configurations and drivers, since they are interesting, it is only going round and round blind folded until one starts to ask questions why do something. Which leads to the very basic stuff like SPL capability and bandwidth and other things like the properties of sound and the room and the hearing and what not, the reality. Proper design is not randomly choosing configurations but addressing the basic questions in terms of a goal while trying to push the trade-offs outside the scope so that they don't prevent reaching the goal.
If the purpose is to figure out a set of 3 way drivers that would work on multiple different configurations then why not. It would be perfectly valid goal for a project. But the goal, any goal, for the project would be required first to even get started otherwise it is just random ideas in the air without connection, a chaos.
If all these basic questions are not asked and answered the sound doesn't get any better, only different. While it is nice to test all these various configurations and drivers, since they are interesting, it is only going round and round blind folded until one starts to ask questions why do something. Which leads to the very basic stuff like SPL capability and bandwidth and other things like the properties of sound and the room and the hearing and what not, the reality. Proper design is not randomly choosing configurations but addressing the basic questions in terms of a goal while trying to push the trade-offs outside the scope so that they don't prevent reaching the goal.
If the purpose is to figure out a set of 3 way drivers that would work on multiple different configurations then why not. It would be perfectly valid goal for a project. But the goal, any goal, for the project would be required first to even get started otherwise it is just random ideas in the air without connection, a chaos.
Last edited: